Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 385 SW2D 520 - McKenzie v. Carte

McKenzie v. Carte’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
1
states following
August 2012
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 49 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably F. R. Hernandez Construction & Supply Co. v. National Bank of Commerce of Brownsville (1979), Deal v. Madison (1978)

2 federal appellate · 49 state decisions

280196419701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Slay v. Burnett Trust · Lewis v. Davis · Bednarz v. State · Pearson v. Doherty · Greenwall Theatrical Circuit Co. v. Markowitz

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[[Image here]] “The judgment may not be supported upon appeal by a presumption of finding upon any ground of recovery or defense, no element of which has been found by the trial court; but where one or more elements thereof have been found by the trial court, omitted unrequested elements, where supported by evidence, will be supplied by presumption in support of the judgment.” ‡ * * * * ⅜”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The appellants did not object to the findings of fact filed nor did they request any additional findings or conclusions of law. The appellants did not urge the defense of election of remedies in the actual trial of the case, nor did they plead such defense. Betty v. Tuer, 292 S.W. 271 (Tex.Civ.App.1927); Holland Texas Hypotheek Bank v. Broocks, 266 S.W. 183 (Tex.Civ.App.1924, wr. ref.); Nelson v. Seidel, 328 S.W.2d 805 (Tex.Civ.App.1959, wr. ref. n. r. e.). “In 21 Tex.Jur.2d 210, § 11, Election of Remedies, it is said: “ ‘The defense of election of remedies, if relied on to defeat recovery, must be specifically pleaded. Pleading is essential regardless of whether a defense is regarded as one of estoppel, election, or waiver. The defense of election must be presented in the trial court, and cannot be urged for the first time on appeal. And the party who sets up the defense of election must show that his opponent actually had two valid, available, and inconsistent remedies, and that he undertook to pursue one.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.